Hypocrisy makes this public's affair

After his relationship with a married woman was revealed, he told reporters: "After my divorce, I decided not to talk again about my subsequent private life. I have stuck to that principle over the years . . . and defended all politicians’ right to a degree of privacy."

Can this really be the same David Blunkett who wants compulsory ID cards, government access to our phone and computer records, and our cars electronically tagged?

His principled stance may come as a surprise to the campaign group Privacy International, which was formed to resist the growing interference by governments and big companies in our lives.

Just last month, in its annual "Big Brother" awards to recognise the worst offenders, Privacy International announced it had renamed one category the David Blunkett Lifetime Menace award, in recognition of the number of times he has been nominated.

Privacy clearly means different things to different people. Few would argue that our medical records should not be private, but many of us have already given up information relating to what we spend our money on by signing up for loyalty cards. For many of us, the only questions of privacy we consider in day-to-day life will be when we are asked if we want to have our name in the phone book, or if we are asked to tick one of the "Please bombard me with junk mail" boxes on forms.

If it appears a distant notion, that’s possibly because the big legal battles so far have been fought by celebrities whose privacy is invaded in less subtle ways, by the paparazzi taking photographs of them without their consent.

We are all photographed without our consent every day - in banks, shopping centres, or on motorways - but images of us buying a pint of milk with our hair unbrushed generally only have a market value if we are famous.

Until 1998, there was little anyone whose picture was taken in a public place could do about it. But then Mr Blunkett’s government introduced the European Convention on Human Rights into our legal system.

THIS explicitly states, in Article 8, that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". But the point which is often missed about ECHR provisions is that none of them are absolute - all are qualified to some extent, and they also have to be measured against other parts of the Convention.

In paparazzi cases, it is Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression - which the media has argued is more important than any individual’s right to their own private space. That argument was generally successful until May, when supermodel Naomi Campbell appealed to the House of Lords that she should be entitled to damages against the Daily Mirror over a story that she was attending Narcotics Anonymous. She won by the narrowest of majorities, and was only partially successful. She was not entitled to prevent publication of her drug addiction, as she had previously made public statements denying she had ever taken drugs. Nor was she entitled to keep secret the fact that she was receiving treatment. But she had the right not to be photographed as she was entering or leaving the NA sessions.

Worse was to follow for the paparazzi last month, when the European Court of Human Rights held that Princess Caroline of Monaco was entitled not to be photographed while sitting in a cafe with her children or playing tennis with her husband. The pictures, published in a German magazine, were taken in public places and revealed no more than a well-known celebrity enjoying a family day out.

But the court held: "Every person, however well-known, must be able to enjoy a legitimate hope for the protection of their private life."

It is to these words which Mr Blunkett and Kimberly Fortier may inevitably have to turn to if, as seems likely, there are further details of their relationship which have still to emerge, and if they want to continue it away from the glare of publicity.

As someone who is not a celebrity and was not heard of until a few days ago, Mrs Fortier appears to have an even better case than Princess Caroline for protection from being photographed. The fact that she is married to someone else may be of interest to readers, but can only strengthen the privacy argument she has. The courts are also likely to be extremely protective of any children involved.

But is Mr Blunkett entitled to the same level of protection of his privacy? He is neither a celebrity nor a private citizen, but a leading member of a government which makes decisions that affect all our lives, including on matters such as marriage, divorce and parenting.

HE puts himself up for election by us, and is paid by us. As Home Secretary, he also takes major decisions on matters of national security, including applications for surveillance and phone-tapping orders. Are we not entitled to know a bit more about the standards he holds in his own life than the passing fads of a jet-set clotheshorse?

There are two other factors which will be holding back the Home Secretary. He will not take lightly a decision to seek the assistance of a judiciary he has routinely bashed over the past three years, as they have challenged some of the Draconian reforms he has introduced under the guise of anti-terrorism measures. That’s the thing with judges - you never know when you might need one.

And he will be well aware of the irony of having to rely on something which he apparently described to Cabinet colleagues as Labour’s "biggest mistake since it came to power" - the ECHR. Critics will be only too keen to point out that he has opted Britain out of parts of the Convention in order to allow police to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges, and his measures have repeatedly been found to be in breach of the remaining parts of the Convention, including the right to privacy.

Nobody would deny that Mr Blunkett has a right to privacy. But, much like the path to true love, enforcing that right is guaranteed to be something of a bumpy ride.

Stephen Smith is a solicitor with Bannatyne Kirkwood France & Co